A contrarian blog, because the majority is wrong about a lot of stuff.

December 18, 2012

Powerful corporation controlled by liberals

Facebook is suspending user accounts that question the official narrative behind the Sandy Hook school massacre, following a warning by Connecticut State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance that “misinformation” posted on social media sites could result in prosecution.

1. Big powerful corporations like FaceBook and Google are controlled by leftists. As you may remember, Google banned my blog from AdSense, presumably because of the politically incorrect content that they would probably call “racist,” but they gave me no explanation and would not respond to my protest.

2. It’s scary that we have a police spokesman threatening prosecution for people who engage in free speech. And Infowars correctly points out how badly the MSM mangled the facts and reported false information as it if were Truth.

20 Comments

The reason all successful websites ultimately enforce a leftist agenda is because the corrupting power in America is currently leftist. Not because their owners are leftist on an intellectual level.

When you become rich or influential through a successful business venture, it is in the course of things to start socializing with other people of your ilk. You receive invitations to dinner parties or private meetings, business opportunities, "gifts", etc. and it is totally impossible to resist, unless you choose to become a complete recluse. What happened is that Marc Zuckerberg, Larry Page and co. got invited to meetings with, say, people more powerful than them who bribed them into enforcing a leftist agenda. There are many ways to bribe a man, and it rarely involves cash.

I agree, the misinformation spread in the media's rush to be first to the story is frightening. Everything was wrong, and there is no consequences to it.

It's one thing for someone to post something false on Facebook, something else entirely for a big news organization to pick up that post and report it as fact. Why doesn't Lt. Vance do something about that?

Nonsense such as this is the reason why I refuse to use Facebook. Facebook is nothing more than the biggest data mining operation imaginable, which provides reams of user information to all of the usual 3 letter government agencies (NSA et al.).

You are truly speaking the truth and confronting the powers that be - Google would only take the drastic action of banning your blog from adsense and ignoring your protest if you were really on to something.

Also, what the police spokesman is referring to is surely not at all obstruction of justice or disturbing the peace. Free speech means being able to say whatever you want with no consequences.

From the article: Homeschooling causes the schools to deteriorate by their non-presence. Ergo, the shootings are caused by homeschooling. Ban homeschooling. Also, give teachers a raise.

"reinvest in what we can only do collectively"

"We need to come together"

"paying elementary school teachers just $51,000 a year at the median"

"We can better value these public servants with more respect and, yes, more pay."

"As Dana Goldstein has written, the urge to home-school “is rooted in distrust of the public sphere, in class privilege, and in the dated presumption that children hail from two-parent families.” "

"low-income children’s test scores rise when they go to school with middle-class kids."

"But it [homeschooling] leaves that system in neglect."

"Not to mention that none of the mass shootings the country has witnessed over the past thirty years were stopped by an armed hero standing up to the attacker. [LOL. Maybe it's because no one was armed.]"

Like South Africa blaming whites for their problems because they emigrated. But they emigrated to because of widespread violence. Which is also why people home-school.

Wouldn't google ban you from adsense simply to protect the advertisers from being associated with such controversial subject matter? A lot of businesses would be furious with google for putting them on an HBD blog. It's an implied endorsement of "racism" that could alienate so many customers.

"Free speech is the next thing to go. Mark my words. Literally, mark them. Because they'll be disappeared along with every other revolutionary thought that challenges the narrative." - CH

It's already begun. Nowadays a lot of websites require you to comment through facebook or some other traceable form. Ending internet anonymity is the first and perhaps most devastating step against free speech. No censorship needed.

Facebook contracts with companies in 3rd world countries including Morocco to censor their site. So I'm guessing Mohammed cartoons are out. haha

But seriously, a disgruntled Moroccan employee leaked their censorship list a few months ago. It seemed like a pretty tame list. So I'm wondering if he was paid to leak the list for strategic reasons. Who knows?

There is a push for law schools to cut tuition expenses by eliminating the third year of law school. Of course, law professors don't like the idea of cutting their tuition income by 1/3 because it may result in faculty layoffs. All the more reason to cut out the third year and also eliminate general eduction requirements for all undergraduates

St. Louis University School of Law's interim dean Tom Keefe Jr. talked this week with The Madison-St. Clair Record about "this terrible problem with student debt."

Keefe, who does double duty as a plaintiffs' lawyer and called himself "unconventional" during the interview, suggested cutting law school curriculum down to two years to save students money.

He took over control of SLU law this semester after former dean Anette Clark penned a very public resignation letter attacking the university's president for using the law school's money to keep the entire university afloat and for leaving her out of big decisions.

While it might seem strange for a law school dean to suggest such a drastic change that would take money away from the school, Keefe isn't alone in wanting to slash the third year of law school.

New York University Law completely revamped its third year of law school and now allows students to study abroad during their third year.

Stanford Law School has also overhauled its third year and now allows students to pursue joint degrees, The New York Times reported in October.

Washington and Lee University School of Law also jumped on the bandwagon and replaced its third year with clinics and outside internships.

Salaries are a major factor, with some law professors at elite or large law schools earning in excess of $350,000 to $400,000 annually. These sums significantly outpace other legal remuneration, except for the 10% in the upper ranks at top law firms.

One solution, he says, is for professors to teach more courses each academic year to cut back on law school salary budgets. Other schools could rely more on part-time professors and offer two-year degrees to shave the overall tuition bill.

Several prestigious law schools have targeted the third year for overhaul, including New York University's School of Law which, in October, agreed to open the third year of study to international experience, or work in a specialized area like environmental or antitrust law. Another cadre of students could choose to focus on specialties like patent or tax law.

Washington and Lee Law School adopted a revamped third year approach, so students can work at law clinics or internships at outside locations. Stanford Law School also broadened its third-year curriculum for students to earn joint degrees with other university departments.

Restricting general education courses to a select few will be extremely unpopular with some faculty. There are large numbers of teaching jobs at stake: many departments that now teach popular general education courses could lose half or more of their students. If that were to occur, financial sanity dictates that faculty jobs in those programs be cut. (Of course, new jobs will be created at the same time for specialists in the essential subjects.)

"that Facebook is punishing users for asking questions about the proper sequence of events – essentially labeling such activity a thought crime – is a worrying development."

If only the US had had Facebook in 1962. And proper police like Lt. J. Paul Vance. Then the entire corpus of Kennedy assassination theories could have nipped the bud. Oliver Stone would be an obscure looney instead of a important filmmaker.